PS3 vs. Xbox 360 ports: The cold, hard truth (page 2 of 4)

Click to read GamePro's review

Click to read GamePro's review

BURNOUT PARADISE

Control: Differences in control between the two versions of Burnout Paradise largely come down to preference. The game is incredibly responsive and tight with its controls. The Xbox 360 controller's triggers feel better for acceleration than the L2/R2 buttons on a Sixaxis, but really, it's a subjective point. You simply won't find any gaps between the two games here.

Graphics: As with the controls, you'll be hard-pressed to denote any significant graphical distinctions between the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions of Burnout Paradise. EA Criterion has done a bang up job keeping the two games even visually. Both consoles squeeze out a fantastic 60 frames-per-second and the detailing on vehicles, buildings, and environment in general is superb.

Load times: Burnout Paradise begins to show favor for PlayStation 3 when clocking its loading times. Both versions require a lengthy initial boot up upon entering the disc into either console, but it's slightly longer on Xbox 360. Even more, there's a split second longer of a wait on Xbox 360 between hitting the triggers to enter an event and it actually beginning. To be certain, we're nitpicking because the game does well in keeping things seamless. But in the end, the PlayStation 3 version is just a bit snappier.

Online integration: Surprisingly, the PlayStation 3 version of Burnout Paradise leads its Xbox 360 counterpart. How is that possible given the might of Xbox Live? A cleaner interface, easier access to online features, and smoother performance online afford PlayStation 3 the edge. Dedicated servers ensure stability during multiplayer races; moreover, the game was optimized for the console, so it just runs better on it when playing online. Alex Ward, head of EA Criterion, has long touted the company's love affair with the open-ended PlayStation Network and it definitely shows.

The PS3 version plays like a shark--fast, furious, and out for blood.

The PS3 version plays like a shark--fast, furious, and out for blood.

EDGE: PlayStation 3

With controls, graphics, and loading times nearly identical between the two consoles, Burnout Paradise flips a bitch with superior online integration on PlayStation 3. It's a shock, to be sure, given the dominance of Xbox Live over online gameplay; however, dedicated servers and generally smoother online performance means the PlayStation 3 takes pole position.

Next: Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

Comments [18]

post a comment

SIRKGM14vg

Just a little tidbit from a developer stand point. After speaking with a source from a know publisher, one of the dev's for a popular game explained the real difference between the consoles, and what it means to them. The PS3 is simply just too slow for testing. In comparison, you're able to load all your code onto the Xbox 360 and run straight from there. The PS3 needs to render off your PC's code stream. That doesn't have anything thing with consumer performance in the end. But it really just shows a poor SDK on Sony's end. Is that a fair argument to say Xbox 360 is better? No. Microsoft has done a "slam dunk" job of getting their consoles to developers, bringing a universal platform for development, and being able to directly identify the community. Take for instance a FPS. Microsoft can produce gaming statistics for that genre, because of the Xbox Live aspect of the console. Data recordings from users play time, preference and library on the 360 directly correlates to the numbers big developers and publishers like to see. But when it comes down to ports, on Xbox 360 and PS3 they are really the same. Wii and prior generation consoles make get a different feel or overall different engine, because major developers outsource those projects. So really does Grand Theft Auto play better on PS3 or Xbox 360. You're really debating nothing. PC-A vs. PC-B; Mercedes Vs. BMW; Coke Vs. Pepsi; all products which perform, or have the same goal but different approaches. Same species though. If I were to pick one console that I would want to stick with forever... I'd sadly go with the Xbox 360. If I could make my decision at a later time, I think PS3 has a better future. Which I know... contradicts my decision. -Moose

burnoutbob

Ok, so you bought a 360, or a PS3 (I own both, and a Wii, but we'll get to that later!). And yes, you're proud of your choice. But lets not get like Mac owners and bitch about rival systems. For a start you're clever enought to play comuter games, so you win v's a Mac owner straight off. The PS3 online system is better, the 360 has a better community, the ps3 has better loading times, no, the 360 does. Who gives a crap?! At the end of the day, whatever choice you made at the counter. Whatever console you bought, be it 360 or PS3, either way, you bought a state of the art console, with graphics far in advance of any other console ever released. Gameplay is fantastic, online play is flawless and smooth, graphics are breathtaking and the fact it's also a multimedia player, able to play all kinds of media formats makes it a damn good purchase. And above all, what you really should be proud of, what should really bring all PS3 and 360 owners together is this one simple fact. You DIDN'T BUY A Wii! You should be so proud!!

burnoutbob

Ok, so you bought a 360, or a PS3 (I own both, and a Wii, but we'll get to that later!). And yes, you're proud of your choice. But lets not get like Mac owners and bitch about rival systems. For a start you're clever enought to play comuter games, so you win v's a Mac owner straight off. The PS3 online system is better, the 360 has a better community, the ps3 has better loading times, no, the 360 does. Who gives a crap?! At the end of the day, whatever choice you made at the counter. Whatever console you bought, be it 360 or PS3, either way, you bought a state of the art console, with graphics far in advance of any other console ever released. Gameplay is fantastic, online play is flawless and smooth, graphics are breathtaking and the fact it's also a multimedia player, able to play all kinds of media formats makes it a damn good purchase. And above all, what you really should be proud of, what should really bring all PS3 and 360 owners together is this one simple fact. You DIDN'T BUY A Wii! You should be so proud!!

K9Wolf

In my opinion, the Xbox 360 is no where near as good as the Playstaion 3. I have be researching the two for 2 months trying to figure out which to buy. For the money, Playstation seems to be the better deal. I loved my PS2, and told myself I would have to try the next Xbox (because the first one wasn't that great). It seems to me that the PS3 offers way more for your buck. A blue ray player, media, free online network (Xbox charges), some pretty good games, and a controller that senses your movement. The Xbox has problems, the dreaded "Ring of Death" for example, and it offers HD DVD, but you have to buy the drive seperately, and now, HD DVD movies are hard to find because Blue Ray beat them out. I subscribe to Netflix, and they don't offer movies on HD DVD. The Xbox 360 may be cheaper, but if you ask me, it's because it doesn't offer as much as the PS3. No media card ports, a funny feeling controller, and the dreaded ring of death are reasons enough for me to avoid the Xbox. Plus, the PS3 is upgradeable, and they still make games for the PS2, which means that when the PS4 comes out, they will probably still make games for the PS3. Either way, it's a personal preference. But for me, it's the playstation that delivers more bang for your buck. After all, you get what you pay for!

fudstand12

I agree with K9Wolf and burnoutbob, but still, my first "true love" with a console was with Sony's Playstation, not to mention that the root of consoles was because of Sony's perseverance and Nintendo's gayness(google it out--how Sony proudly built the first respectful console). In the end, my buck would still go for Sony's PS3: BlueRay, upgradeable, outstanding memory...you said it. And it's a console which really earned my respect--think of it, though PS3 is already out there being all popular, Sony doesn't seize to recognize its older consoles, our PS2 specifically. But most of all, our thanks would be for all those game devs who never grow old of making outstanding games.

jololopez

I own both...and when you st your ps3 to its optimal settings-FULL RANGE HDMI...and SUPERWHITE CONTRAST...then youll see the real difference..I have multiplatformers on both systems...cuz my son uses the 360...I let him have it when I seen the vast graphical prowess of the ps3....I keep my ps3 safe and sound...its my baby...a blind person can see the difference if they look at it without being such a fanboy....My friggin grandma seen me switching between ps3 and 360 displays with the same game....like devil may cry...assasins creed...a couple racing games...etc...and she asked me why did one look so much crisper...clearer...and more colorful than the other...star wars...man the list goes on and on....I told her...grandma...your not crazy...its just ps3 is a real machine....xbox is great...but ps3 is the shiznit...game over untill MS outdoes the obvious...

One last thing-Gears of war used to be the trophy graphical powerhouse of 360...part two comes out...and the graphics looked wishy-washy...compared to what the ps3 has been doing...well...resistance baby....if gow stunned you...resistance will blow your crap stained underwear right off your butcheecks! Halo....man...that doesnt even worth mention here....that was as crappy as the 2nd one...the first was innovative...but they didnt do much more from there...graphics...crayola...ps3 graphics...silk...stay away from the red light Luke...the dark side isnt all its cracked up to be....

yourmomsdaddy

I own both consoles... have a 46 in samsung LN-T4655F and have recently updated both to HDMI with digital optical cables running from both to the receiver. I have both consoles set to there most optimal settings as far as HD... max white, 1080p etc... yada yada. Yes I have compared games for myself and here's what I came up with: The 360 has sharper 3d mapping with crisper edgy details with more of a depth. The ps3 has more of a blurred 3d blending which seems to focus more on realism rather than the deep dimensions that the 360 seems to produce. I noticed better sharper colors on each at different times than the other. Overall both systems are graphically superior to the other in one way or the other. I would just have to say it's about user preference as far as what is visually stimulating. I did however notice that on the ps3, when testing out Assassins Creed on each, the horizon on the ps3 diminished on the larger environments before that of the 360 which would lead me to believe that the 360 video card is superior in what it can handle... and yes I did get the red ring of death on my first 360... i called support... 3 days later they sent a box with a free shipping card... I sent it in and voila I had a new 360 a week later. Yes that was a pain in the arse but I don't think that problem even persists anymore unless you just have an older 1st gen 360. I myself when comparing games between the two think that the 360 is superior. But like I said I think they are both excellent consoles and it just boils down to user preference. I have played gears 1 and 2 through and am currently working on resistance 1. So far I would have to say gears is far more superior by far. I have yet to play a FPS that matches the detail and 3d layering that was put into that game.

yourmomsdaddy

Not to say resistance isn't good... it's awesome... cool storyline (which gears in my opinion lacks somewhat), clear rich graphics and fast paced gameplay, but it just doesn't measure up to the tactical gameplay and rich crisp environments in gears. I would have to agree with some of the previous comments on Halo. That is the most over rated franchise in the history of gaming. There... I said it. Sue me. All you fanboys who cried at the end of Halo 3... good fackin riddance. I'm sick to death of hearing about that stupid game. Not to say it wasn't good or worth playing but what the hell was so special? It's like the holy grail among gamers and I just don't see it. Online play you say? COD4 is way better online. Too many load screens in Halo online. COD4 in my opinion, being a fan of FPS, is the best online game ever. Now on to the online features of each... Yes you have to pay for xbox live... 50 bucks for a year. If you can't cough up 50 bucks for a year of online gameplay then you really shouldn't be spending 400-600 dollars on a game console in the first place. I still prefer xbox live anyday. While it's not rocket science to figure out either of the twos dashboard and online play I prefer the 360 over the ps3. The 360 is more user friendly and when playing COD4 online ps3 seemed to have a greater load time which is an important factor with online gaming.

yourmomsdaddy

This is where gears messed up in my opinion. Online play is shite for gears. Deathmatches are played in rounds where you get killed once and have to wait till all the other players are dead before you can respawn for another round. Not to mention the load time... bah. As far as I'm concerned the 360 is better and would be the better investment in almost every category except of course the blu-ray player. Whoopity doo dah. I bought this thing for gaming... period. My recommendation is go buy a 360 and get a blu-ray player seperately when you can afford to... and the number one thing that erked me on the ps3 is nothing was cross compatible... not even god of war... What the fack is this? While not all xbox are compatible with the 360 you can still play most of the popular titles (Lucas Arts, Halo<<<< like i care, COD etc.).. I still have both god of war titles for the ps2 and got rid of my ps2 a while ago. So when god of war 3 comes out I'm unna have to buy another ps2 so I can get caught up? Sony needs to fix this. Anyways... I own both consoles and have played both religiously.... My opinion>>>> 360 takes the cake!!

Post a Comment